bowisneski wrote:Would it have been any less absurd or silly to have Nadine or James do it? Because one of those I questionably support and the other I am/would've been much more on board for.

And I would say that statement about convention is painting with far too broad of a brush. I would point to a history of my posts, especially this one about my rewatch, or even my history of discusssion with the Profoundly Disappointed folks over in that thread, to show that the things I love aren't specifically conventional. I thought the pace ended up great, would've actually been ok with what we got being stretched a little more, and would've liked more Dougie. I would assume people that were looking for something more conventional would be irked by those things, but I can't speak for anyone else.

I didn't need resolution to BOB. I feel like anyone but Cooper or Laura dispatching BOB would've been easy to frame as unconventional or BOB not getting resolved at all. For me, it's not that that scene the way it exists is so much bad/unconventional as it just doesn't feel of a whole with the rest of the season or series as a whole. Again, yes, you cand point to ridiculous things in the original series that are silly but they still feel of a whole. I guess that the argument then becomes that makes it unconventional, but even something unconventional should fit within the world.

I do think that Freddie being a completely a completely unrelated character from halfway around the world makes it quite a bit more absurd than a having a Twin Peaks character do it, absolutely. The idea that it would have been more acceptable for a Twin Peaks character to put on a magical green garden glove and super punch out a bouncing found footage BOB ball still seems to me to be seeking something more comfortingly conventional to an absurd idea.

I'm not saying that it was unconventional just for the sake of being unconventional. I think the show was satirizing the expectations it was subverting. I mean the Audrey introduction scene seems to be a clear example of that, but this is too. Freddy and his green glove are just about the antithesis of what would be the conventional expectation for "defeating BOB".

Playing devil’s advocate: the fact that the scene is intended as subversion of expectation or commentary on the nature of storytelling isn’t in and of itself an ironclad defense. I think we could probably all name examples of high-concept films and TV shows that admirably tried to do something experimental and ambitious, and completely crapped the bed in terms of execution. There’s a reason most creators stick to the tried and true: experimentalism and subversion aren’t easy to nail. I think it’s perfectly ok to admire what L/F were going for in the scene, and to totally “get it” (insofar as it’s ever possible to “get” DKL), and yet still to feel like the scene missed the mark. For me, part of the issue is that, unlike most of the hairpin twists in mood in DKL’s films that make him my favorite living filmmaker, the “green glove” scene feels jarring — and not “good jarring,” like the Mystery Man popping up after the desert sex scene in Lost Highway.

And that takes us back to square one: the jarring, pothole-in-the-road nature of the scene is entirely the point. I can see both sides, and I can definitely appreciate that perspective on an intellectual level, but the fact remains that that sequence doesn’t connect with me on a gut level the way DKL’s work typically does (including most of TP:TR). Usually with DKL, the feeling is paramount, and intellectualizing is an optional afterthought. Appreciating the green glove scene seems to be exactly the opposite for me, and many people. In a way, that’s an interesting evolution of his art (and perhaps a byproduct of the Frost influence), but it’s an outlier from what really draws me to his work on a visceral level. I can appreciate it intellectually and technically, but in terms of living in the mood of the piece, it’s the equivalent of being shaken half-awake in the middle of a beautiful dream. Which, in concept—again—sounds like an awesome tonal experiment! But on a gut level, it just doesn’t gel for me as a satisfying piece of the whole.

LateReg wrote:The way I see it, I think this debate is divided into at least 3 points of view. There are the people, like me, who like the scene mostly because of what it means, and how it fits into the larger tapestry. Secondly, there are people who purely like the scene for exactly what it is on the surface, including how it feels, it's level of execution and its place in the plot.

I like the scene both for exactly what it is and for what I think it means. It is to be taken both in earnest and in a subversive way, like much in Twin Peaks. I find it thrilling, I did at the time and still do. I also knew one thrilling, earnest, magical moment would never solve the whole problem. I think seeing it through both lenses simultaneously is extremely in keeping with Lynch's longstanding approach to this kind of gonzo material. He (almost) always means it.

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.

bowisneski wrote:I would actually say that Nadine's super strength was introduced in Episode 2 when she bends the rowing machine.

Okay, fair enough, where did Nadine's super strength come from, and why, what purpose did it serve?

We all know the story behind BOB; that he was introduced by "accident" because "some" crew-member appeared mistakenly on screen, as if he were a ghostly reflection of some sort, so to speak. In a way one could say the he entered the TP's world as a Deus Ex Machina.

In TPS3 the story goes that Freddie tells his story about his history of entering the story by means of a conversation with James, a rather naive native TP-citizen. To cut a long story short, Freddie purely functioned as a puppet in the Fireman's orchestration, like all the other personages, from Cooper to Naido, from Lucy to Sheriff Truman.

Any way, to me it does not feel as a giant leap for one Deus Ex Machina (Freddie) eradicating the other (BOB).

bowisneski wrote:Would it have been any less absurd or silly to have Nadine or James do it? Because one of those I questionably support and the other I am/would've been much more on board for.

I do think that Freddie being a completely a completely unrelated character from halfway around the world makes it quite a bit more absurd than a having a Twin Peaks character do it, absolutely. The idea that it would have been more acceptable for a Twin Peaks character to put on a magical green garden glove and super punch out a bouncing found footage BOB ball still seems to me to be seeking something more comfortingly conventional to an absurd idea.

I'm not saying that it was unconventional just for the sake of being unconventional. I think the show was satirizing the expectations it was subverting. I mean the Audrey introduction scene seems to be a clear example of that, but this is too. Freddy and his green glove are just about the antithesis of what would be the conventional expectation for "defeating BOB".

That is a fair point and you're essentially spot on. I would've preferred something "more conventional" while still being unconventional and feeling as a piece of the whole than something slightly less conventional that didn't feel like Twin Peaks to me. That's completely down to personal taste and what I feel like Twin Peaks is which isn't my choice, that's their choice and they made it. Though, if we didn't know about Freddie, I feel like it would have felt almost as unconventional and still gotten the same point across. I mean, hell, when Andy came back from the Fireman he could've gone to the store and got a green glove and we would've had no idea why and then Lucy kills Mr. C and Andy dispatches BOB. That sounds almost as absurd to me, but I feel like it would work better in the context of the series as a whole and not just The Return.

As far as Audrey goes, the only thing that felt unconventional to me was the lack of establishing shot and how extremely in media res her story seemed to be compared to everyone else.

Xavi wrote:

bowisneski wrote:I would actually say that Nadine's super strength was introduced in Episode 2 when she bends the rowing machine.

Okay, fair enough, where did Nadine's super strength come from, and why, what purpose did it serve?

We all know the story behind BOB; that he was introduced by "accident" because "some" crew-member appeared mistakenly on screen, as if he were a ghostly reflection of some sort, so to speak. In a way one could say the he entered the TP's world as a Deus Ex Machina.

In TPS3 the story goes that Freddie tells his story about his history of entering the story by means of a conversation with James, a rather naive native TP-citizen. To cut a long story short, Freddie purely functioned as a puppet in the Fireman's orchestration, like all the other personages, from Cooper to Naido, from Lucy to Sheriff Truman.

Any way, to me it does not feel as a giant leap for one Deus Ex Machina (Freddie) eradicating the other (BOB).

I guess I never cared about that in the case of Nadine because by the time her super strength manifested in an extreme way, I already knew her as a character. I would guess(since we'll probably never know for sure) the purpose of her having super strength was tickling Mark and/or David's fancy(something that is 100% ok and up to them as they are the gods and creators of that universe), which seems to be the reason that the green glove idea exists and I assume Mark turned it in to a subversive deus ex machina idea. Which circles back to what I said above about wanting something more conventional in the sense that I know and/or understand the human character doing something, not just an old idea brought in to create dissonance when you could do a million different things to that same end that I feel would've worked better.

While I get that portrays how the Fireman uses people, it seems we've always gotten to know the puppets by at least the end. Freddie tells his backstory, but it's only a very specific moment in time and he doesn't seem like a person despite all of that exposition. Compare that with Candy who barely spoke but I totally understood as a person. I will agree that not knowing him does fit with being a deus ex machina, but another problem with that is he, unlike BOB, was actually introduced and meant to be there in the first two episodes they wrote. He doesn't come out of nowhere and get retrofitted or used in a sort of unexpected way like BOB did. When his backstory was introduced, most people, albeit mostly jokingly, said that he would be part of whatever showdown was coming. I would say that is in the end closer to avoiding subverting expectations since the time was taken to set it up instead of just having Freddie be some sort of rando caught up in the bar brawl who happens to be deeply involved in the Lodge shenanigans.

In the end, just doing something with intent and an idea doesn't mean it works. For me, Mr. Reindeer was spot on in his above post with the following

Mr. Reindeer wrote:For me, part of the issue is that, unlike most of the hairpin twists in mood in DKL’s films that make him my favorite living filmmaker, the “green glove” scene feels jarring — and not “good jarring,” like the Mystery Man popping up after the desert sex scene in Lost Highway.

And that takes us back to square one: the jarring, pothole-in-the-road nature of the scene is entirely the point. I can see both sides, and I can definitely appreciate that perspective on an intellectual level, but the fact remains that that sequence doesn’t connect with me on a gut level the way DKL’s work typically does (including most of TP:TR). Usually with DKL, the feeling is paramount, and intellectualizing is an optional afterthought. Appreciating the green glove scene seems to be exactly the opposite for me, and many people. In a way, that’s an interesting evolution of his art (and perhaps a byproduct of the Frost influence), but it’s an outlier from what really draws me to his work on a visceral level. I can appreciate it intellectually and technically, but in terms of living in the mood of the piece, it’s the equivalent of being shaken half-awake in the middle of a beautiful dream. Which, in concept—again—sounds like an awesome tonal experiment! But on a gut level, it just doesn’t gel for me as a satisfying piece of the whole.

It really comes down to personal feeling on aesthetic, story, and what draws you to Lynch, Frost, and/or Twin Peaks. I prefer a menacing BOB, knowing a character, and having a scene work on multiple levels for me(at least when I'm watching something that is more made for the sake of making it than as a purely commercial endeavor).

It's why I truly feel for the people that didn't like the season who have been accused of not understanding something, since you can understand something and still not enjoy it. I also feel for those who have been called deluded because they like something. Unfortunately/fortunately art is subjective and based on every experience and bit of knowledge you bring to it including who the artist is and your view of the world and media. Which is why I love threads like this because it is great seeing other people go in to more depth on what they do or don't get out of a scene, episode, season, or series as a whole.

One of my favorite moments from TP was when Leland recounted his childhood experiences up at Pearl Lakes, meeting Bob for the first time. Talking about a vacant house and playing with fire, sparking one's imagination. Such brilliant acting by Wise in the way he made you feel his pain.

To me, TP was always less about trying to find a logical explanation to everything (as in understanding Frost's motives for the fight scene playing out the way it does) and more about feeling things. Freddie's fight scene doesn't make me feel much at all, just a slight irritation at the banality of it all. Freddie landing a bigger and bigger punch until he ultimately defeats Bob. Like in a video game.

There are other parts of TR which work better. Like the insect/Bob, crawling into young Sarah's room, the same way he does into Laura's room in FWWM. Those kind of things leave a lasting impression.

Which is probably why I, as a child, woke up in the middle of the night completely terrified because I could see Bob on all four on my bedroom floor. This morning, as an adult, an insect landed in my cereal and it instantly made me think of Bob in an uneasy way.

So, TR still has an impact. It just hits you a little differently at 37 compared to the age of 12.

Reindeer and Bowisneski both make clear the central issue here, that if it doesn't hit you in the gut, then it's not as easy to embrace. This is, as Reindeer has pointed out, a bit more complicated than that, however, as the precise point may be that it is supposed to make you feel that sense of bafflement and unease.

Since Reindeer went into this playing Devil's Advocate in a way that also appealed to the truth of his predicament when it comes to the scene, let me briefly do the same. If there is a moment that makes me feel like something isn't quite right with Freddie and therefore The Return, it is absolutely NOT during Freddie's punch-out. That scene already began with Lucy shooting Mr. C, and Truman's seemingly bulletproof hat (is his jumping hat the first sign that this scene is NOT actually taking place in a strict reality?), and so Cooper and Freddie's arrival feel just as oddly compelling and uncertain; as I said, I think the punch-out scene works as a bold piece of art, and an intense one at that, and further, a many-layered one. So, for me, the time when Freddie actually takes me out of it occurs before that sequence. There is so much tension building in the first half of Part 17, and the moment it somewhat deflates for me is when Freddie punches open that cell door to take out Chad. Yes, when I first saw it I felt a relief of sorts as I thought that was all Freddie would have to do to fulfill his destiny, but on subsequent viewings, that is the moment where my tension briefly deflates at the expense of what feels like a joke. Meanwhile, I've always loved the bar brawl precisely because of its WTF jokiness, and its tone is made clear from the introduction of ZZ Top's Sharp Dressed Man and the hilarious record skips. But if we even want to take it further back, I could also cite Freddie's monologue in Part 14 as being a less appealing moment for me because of how it emphasizes a sudden onslaught of absurd superhero-destiny dialogue from a character we don't even know in the midst of an episode that is surrounded by incredibly moody, atmospheric sequences (this is all par for the course, of course, and fits into the game that Lynch/Frost are playing throughout the series). So, I can't help but see Freddie as either A. being a problem from the word go, or conversely B. that his ultimate scene dueling with Bob is the incredible scene he was building to all along, both as it concerns his purpose in the plot as well as the tone (serious/not serious?) of his scenes. So I guess I'm saying that there's enough consistent buildup that I find it odd that so many have a problem with THAT scene as opposed to the others.

Wording it like this now, Freddie almost feels like a dare to me. As Bowisneski pointed out, in the end the one thing The Return doesn't subvert is the introduction of its own Deus Ex Machina, as it allows Freddie to go ahead with defeating BOB; but, none of us truly expected that that would actually occur, which still results in total subversion, as though it was daring us to not think that Lynch/Frost would go through with it. One of the remarkable things about The Return is how it feels like it had anticipated viewers' reactions, and dipped, ducked and dived accordingly throughout, as though it was reading recaps and being made as it aired.

And yes, Missoulamt, it does on the basic level possess the banality of a video game...isn't that something???

Just ordered The Entire Mystery and The Return, so I'll finally be rewatching and can't wait to address the many scenes that baffled or threw me during the initial run. With expectations and desires aside, I'm sure it will be a fresh and interesting experience.

A couple of things about Freddie versus BOB:

01) What does everyone think would have happened if Freddie had failed? I worried for Cooper and others in the moment but I'm not even sure what dangers BOB posed, exactly. We've seen him possess people and entrap souls in objects. In this scene he was operating on a more base level, physically attacking and bloodying people in the room. Was he attempting to end Cooper's mortal life in order to protect Judy? And if so, would that alone have been sufficient?

02) Thinking about it over the weekend, I recalled being terrified of what was going to happen, but somewhat strangely, the thing that blunted the whole affair for me was realizing a bizarre state in which I was more worried about what Lynch and Frost were going to do to someone that we love, as opposed to BOB doing it. So on the one hand I was feeling tense and worried, and on the other hand I was aware of the writers in the room and in that regard found it a bit difficult to take BOB seriously. It's a shame that I felt that way, and it's my fault for spending so much time on the forums, but I think it's an important aspect of my experience and worth mentioning here.

Something like this couldn't have been the case back in the day, as the "disconnect" provided by living in the bubble of my local area, without internet or a connection to a Twin Peaks community or large body of production details, left me blissfully unaware of the gears in the machine. There was a complete detachment from and unawareness of the great abundance of knowledge and excited exchanges about the show. The only discussions had were with my brother and our good friend, as the three of us watched the show together. We simply saw what the machine did and didn't know or think about its inner workings. For example we didn't know that Gordon Cole was portrayed by David Lynch until merely happening to notice it in the credits.

Focusing so intently on what's happening production side is inevitable when discussing something with such passion, interest, and frequency, but it's dangerous too because it has the potential to begin dissolving the suspension of disbelief (for me at least).

Damned either way I guess, because I really enjoyed the discussions on the forum while The Return was airing, but also wish that I could have experienced the show in the same manner as the original. For example the whole bit about Richard Horne, which is really the fault of the creators for putting his surname in the damn credits, but still, I didn't notice when the credits were rolling, so I wouldn't have known if not for this forum. Knowing his surname and following the potential reasons for it led many to determine who he was long before it was actually revealed. Because of that, subsequent scenes and revelations did not have the significant impact they otherwise would have.

Still, I wouldn't go back and change a thing I suppose, and anyway we all know you can't go back, but regardless, I've had too much fun here to want to undo anything.

Back to the fight again, I simply could not wait for the rewatch and broke one of my rules last night (don't revisit any scenes until the rewatch), and watched the BOB fight because I really couldn't remember it in great detail at this point. I have to say, it's nothing like what I recalled, and I really enjoyed it the second time around. What a "Lost Highway" experience: I pretty much hated Lost Highway the first time I saw it, but the above-mentioned friend wanted to see it, so I watched it with him and was surprised by how much I loved the whole thing. One of the main reasons it was initially so off-putting is that by the end, I had absolutely no answers and felt that the thing was ending when it had only just begun. Sound familiar?

Mr. Strawberry wrote:Damned either way I guess, because I really enjoyed the discussions on the forum while The Return was airing, but also wish that I could have experienced the show in the same manner as the original. For example the whole bit about Richard Horne, which is really the fault of the creators for putting his surname in the damn credits, but still, I didn't notice when the credits were rolling, so I wouldn't have known if not for this forum. Knowing his surname and following the potential reasons for it led many to determine who he was long before it was actually revealed. Because of that, subsequent scenes and revelations did not have the significant impact they otherwise would have.

I do wonder why they put his full name in the credits. L/F were clearly paying attention to how people were credited, since they made such a huge deal out of hiding the Fireman’s name with question marks. So I guess it was a strategic decision to let the audience guess Richard’s provenance long before it came up in the show?

I talked to Sabrina Sutherland about this while it was airing (circa episode thirteen)...and she said before episode five aired she talked to Lynch about how his name should appear in the credits. He thought about it, and decided on listing his name.

Mr. Strawberry wrote:Damned either way I guess, because I really enjoyed the discussions on the forum while The Return was airing, but also wish that I could have experienced the show in the same manner as the original. For example the whole bit about Richard Horne, which is really the fault of the creators for putting his surname in the damn credits, but still, I didn't notice when the credits were rolling, so I wouldn't have known if not for this forum. Knowing his surname and following the potential reasons for it led many to determine who he was long before it was actually revealed. Because of that, subsequent scenes and revelations did not have the significant impact they otherwise would have.

I do wonder why they put his full name in the credits. L/F were clearly paying attention to how people were credited, since they made such a huge deal out of hiding the Fireman’s name with question marks. So I guess it was a strategic decision to let the audience guess Richard’s provenance long before it came up in the show?

I loved it. It was definitely a very conscious decision, and beyond simply letting the audience guess, I think it was very important that the audience might KNOW who he is: a Horne, possibly Audrey's kid, by extension possibly Cooper's, etc. Knowing something like that, beyond or accompanied by guessing exactly who he is, enriches the experience of watching him wreak havoc, or snaking through a room of thugs to lock eyes with Mr. C through a massive screen (although at that point we had already learned he was Silvia's grandson). It very much works the same way as how some movies with a twist feel cheap because the information revealed in the twist would have strengthened the preceding moments, allowing them to resonate more deeply if the creators werent so busy trying to hide it for the sake of surprising the audience. Here, Lynch/Frost get to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak, giving us a clue and allowing it to fester into a sickening sensation as we sense the truth long before it is revealed. Meanwhile, hiding it in the credits both confirms that the credits sequences are an integral part of the show that warrant close attention, as well as allowing for the possibility that some or many viewers would miss it and remain in the dark to his identity.

Mr. Strawberry wrote:01) What does everyone think would have happened if Freddie had failed? I worried for Cooper and others in the moment but I'm not even sure what dangers BOB posed, exactly. We've seen him possess people and entrap souls in objects. In this scene he was operating on a more base level, physically attacking and bloodying people in the room. Was he attempting to end Cooper's mortal life in order to protect Judy? And if so, would that alone have been sufficient?

For me this is a question with a very simple and obvious answer. I remember the mirror-scene in the prison cell, where Mr C looked at himself asking if BOB was still with him. It was when Mr C's image subtly morphed into characteristics of BOB's, as he also spook "Good." Then, in episode 8 the true answer why BOB's presence was good for Mr C was exhibited vehemently: BOB made Mr C immortal - he was shut dead, but was not dead, because ... well we all know the story.

So, if BOB would not have been defeated by Freddie then BOB would've returned (yeah) into Mr C, who was shut dead by Lucy, but would not have died, which means that BOB would abide inside Mr C. In a figurative way BOB stands for the evil that exists inside of human beings, and that sets him in similar footsteps as the Mystery Man in Lost Highway.

Mr. Reindeer wrote:I do wonder why they put his full name in the credits. L/F were clearly paying attention to how people were credited, since they made such a huge deal out of hiding the Fireman’s name with question marks. So I guess it was a strategic decision to let the audience guess Richard’s provenance long before it came up in the show?

Is it really hard to imagine that the three names for the Man Above associate with the names of the gods within the three monotheistic religions, of which the Jews declared theirs as "too sacred to be uttered" ???????

EDIT: Woops! This thread exploded while I was gone and reading it again I skipped over 2 newer pages... sorry to bring up old posts but they gave me some thoughts.

missoulamt wrote:There was nothing about Freddie, the Mitchum bros and their girlfriends and Hutch and Chantal that made me particularly care about them...

I can't say I agree. I always liked Nadine, but I've never seen her referred to as a universally beloved character--many disliked her, especially her High School plot.

And yet compared to Nadine in the original, I like the Mitchums, Hutch & Chantal even more. Not to browbeat you, I'm just sharing my snap reaction, but; it actually throws me off guard anyone could find fault in anything about them, the acting and writing are amazing to me for those new characters in particular. I was invested in them despite my surprise (I initially disliked both) but by the time Hutch & Chantal died, I was actually sad they were gone, and by the time the Mitchums dined with Dougie, I was hoping they would remain until the end.

As for Freddy being like if Nadine walked up to BOB in the original ... I expect something like that would have happened; long ago when discussing how the original could have been resolved had it continued, I remember joking, actually, that the logical conclusion for how everything would end is that side characters, previously unconnected to the main plot, would lock into place. Including Nadine's super-strength being of plot use. And that did happen, in more ways than Freddy. Lucy shoots the doppelgänger, and Andy literally visits the lodge. Both of which, because they were previously safeguarded in the 'secular' sideplot world, their safety an unconscious thing to us out of familiarity that they never advance beyond the normal reality, were SHOCKING moments to me. So I don't think they did this willy-nilly, rather they did it for effect. The only parallel I can think of is when Josie descended into the knob, and her body gave way to BOB. Which, back then, was a despised moment too.

EDIT 2:

AgentEcho wrote:I do think that Freddie being a completely a completely unrelated character from halfway around the world makes it quite a bit more absurd than a having a Twin Peaks character do it, absolutely. The idea that it would have been more acceptable for a Twin Peaks character to put on a magical green garden glove and super punch out a bouncing found footage BOB ball still seems to me to be seeking something more comfortingly conventional to an absurd idea.

I think this is on the ball, but I think there's an equally good 'answer' in a more simple line of thought. Given that we take gods and demons (or, if you prefer, positive and negative entities) as existing, why exactly would they follow our ideas of conventional physics, including conventional beats in storytelling? I mean, that's always been an aspect of Twin Peaks theorizing, and the dialogue between Freddy & James where the green glove is introduced allude to this idea specifically. Freddy asks, Why me? And the response he gets is, Why not you? This is, just like the over-the-top reactions in grief stricken characters, or the myriad quirks in behavior, a kind of dramatic paradox; what we see as unnatural on screen, seemingly based on our conditioning to what is presented on other TV shows or plot vehicles, is actually natural in reality. That someone would launch themselves into a dangerous scenario because they believe, but don't fully understand, that it has importance, happens on a daily level. The uncanny is ordinary, the extraordinary is often more commonplace than we might realize, etc. Life often does not adhere to our desire for narrative coherence. The workings of a contrived powerful entity has even less reason to do so.

Whether the scene works in terms of feeling, I think it does; my initial time, and my second time around after I pondered it over, there is a specific and visceral feeling. I get overwhelmed and exhausted by its execution; how I feel seems intentional, as it's reflected in the reactions (somewhat mockingly? but that uncertainty is also part of the feeling) in the Mitchums' reaction. I can't quite grasp how sincere or insincere it is, but I feel something and at that intensely, and that's pretty much how I would describe most of the franchise.

As for Freddie as a character, I didn't feel he was made intentionally unrelatable or out of place; to the contrary, his scene with James, René and the punch down was put in, I think, to soften the audience to him; I liked the scene and by extension, became that much more okay with Freddy's presence in the series. I think the subversion that was intended was that, with that bar scene, you were supposed to ask, "Wait, is that what the glove's purpose was?" Then it moves the chess-pieces, and once you see James & Freddy in jail in proximity to Naido, again, you ask "Oh, wait, was that the end of the glove plot?" And again when he decks Chad with the cell door. With the distraction of keeping in mind that Lucy, too, is being slotted into an important place, by the time it comes into play against BOB, you're rightly baffled. You remain in that suspension of disbelief the whole time, and I think that was the onus of the play with expectation; the glove is red herring until it isn't. The overall meaning of a deux ex machina being what destroys BOB and everything involving Cooper as hero-archetype after easily lends to analysis, but I think all the stuff with Freddy on a character level, and on a suspense level, was actually fairly conventional.

Audrey Horne wrote:I talked to Sabrina Sutherland about this while it was airing (circa episode thirteen)...and she said before episode five aired she talked to Lynch about how his name should appear in the credits. He thought about it, and decided on listing his name.

I think it was the right choice. Although it took away from the surprise that this character was a Horne in later episodes, listing his name in the credits immediately led to speculation about Richard's parentage, being one of the most discussed topics on these boards for several episodes.

Mr. Strawberry wrote:01) What does everyone think would have happened if Freddie had failed? I worried for Cooper and others in the moment but I'm not even sure what dangers BOB posed, exactly. We've seen him possess people and entrap souls in objects. In this scene he was operating on a more base level, physically attacking and bloodying people in the room. Was he attempting to end Cooper's mortal life in order to protect Judy? And if so, would that alone have been sufficient?

That is a question that raises something that I hadn't actually thought about being wrong with the scene to me which is there is no tension. The visuals and sound design create some, but it never even crossed my mind that Freddie might or could fail(or even die after succeeding) or that anyone in the room might be in danger. While that fits in with the idea of the ridiculous super hero trope, I don't think I've ever felt that before from a Lynch piece. So maybe that's a Frost thing since he has written super hero stuff and Lynch created as much tension as he could.

In answering the hypothetical though, I agree with Xavi. BOB either would've re-entered Mr. C or taken off like he did post Leland. I'm not exactly sure why he didn't just flee like he did post Leland, maybe because he left Leland before he was dead?